Band Protests As A Copyright Troll Sues Its Fans

from the control-your-copyrights dept

One thing that's always amazed me is how the record labels ever got away with making it a standard thing that musicians hand over their copyrights to the label entirely. Sure, the labels put up some risk capital and handle part of the business side of things, but to totally give up all of your copyrights? In the tech industry, we've got lots of experience with risk capital, but venture capital deals (even as many entrepreneurs bemoan the deal terms) never go as far as record label deals in basically claiming 100% equity ownership in exchange for a piddly royalty (and only after you pay back the initial loan). But, of course, thanks to a broken system, musicians basically had little choice in the past but to sign a record label deal -- and with just a few large players in the space, giving away your entire output was considered "standard."

But, that leads to some troubling results. We've already seen how artists have complained about their own works being used in suing fans. These artists feel helpless about this legal campaign that attacks their fans, potentially creating significant problems for any attempt by those musicians to connect with fans and earn a living going forward.

Take, for example, the tragic story of the band All Shall Perish, as chronicled on TorrentFreak. Apparently, the band's German label handed over the rights to sue to a Panama-based copyright troll who is now suing people in the US, contrary to the band's own wishes. The band, of course, recognizes that suing dozens of its biggest fans is not a good idea, but seems powerless to stop things.

“The band’s attorney made it clear to the licensing people [at Nuclear Blast Records] that the band wanted no part in lawsuits against fans. The industry is changing, illegal downloading is troublesome for bands and of course, for record labels, but whatever the solution will be – streaming, subscription, Kickstarter, new ways of looking at it entirely, whatever comes about – the band and I are in agreement (as is their lawyer) that SUING MUSIC FANS SURE ISN’T IT,” Downey told TorrentFreak.

Apparently, after a lot of pressure from the band, the label claims it will tell the trolling operation, World Digital Rights, to dismiss the lawsuits. The band is now trying to regain control of its copyrights, and is saying that it would much prefer to protect its fans rather than sue them:

“The band, their attorney and myself have and will continue to take any steps to protect their fans, yes, even those who file trade,” Downey told us. “The band would prefer that their fans legally purchase, stream or otherwise enjoy their music. But they definitely have not, will not and do not wish to sue their fans.”

Re: Clarifying Question

Re: Re: Clarifying Question

Agreed there--that the rights may have arisen from German rights, but IP law is not generally international (though recognizing that TRIPS and similar international agreements create minimum standards for signatories). To bring a copyright suit in the US, you're suing under US copyright law, and that doesn't apply German rights nor German standing requirements.

Re: Clarifying Question

No, I believe the Righthaven case determined that you can't assign just a right to sue. Remember, Righthaven didn't have the right to distribute (or even license?) the stuff they were suing over. If these folks do have the right to distribute, that seems very different.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

He's brought it up again in the Palmer thread as well. He's literally incapable of holding more than one argument in his head. Sometimes, he does realise he's been proven wrong 100 times and switches to another argument, though these are normally just as moronic and obnoxious. Pathetic, but what can you do?

you're != your

Re: you're != your

I stopped reading after that.

I'm sorry. While others choose to continue reading the entirety of the summary, despite the failure, you prefer to remain blissfully ignorant due to a single error. I have to ask, with all due respect; do you also throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I had already heard about this and I'm not even going to read this, because it just reminds me how incredibly fuckimg totally stupidly braindead people are.

The so-called recording industry has a long, long, loooong history (as in, since its beginning 100 or more years ago) of being filled with the sleaziest scumbag lowlife abusive rapists and pimps who do fuck-all for a living and simply screw "their" 'artists' into the ground while treating them worse than corporate chicken ranchers treat their chickens and meanwhile driving BMW’s and eating filet and drinking vintage champagne and snorting cocaine paid for from the stolen revenues of the 'artists'.

ANY 'artist' fucking stupid enough to "sign" with any of these lowlife pimps and rapists in the last 50-75 years (you know, since regular newscasts began) DESERVES to get screwed to shit (including talented friends of mine who couldn't help themselves but bend over and drop their pants for the major label rapists despite my warnings - they have several albums out there and after allegedly selling millions in the last 30 years were left with sweet fuck-all by the rapists and some of them still don't have any real income).

I keep telling buyers to boycott that sick sadistic industry. The 'artists' also need to totally boycott the rapists and pimps and starve those fuckers to death. Those fuckers are worse than killer drug-resistant bacteria (yet still sleazier) and will not stop their evil ways until they are killed off completely as a species.

As for copyright trolls - they're the answer to the question "what is something so disgusting that even pigshit holds its nose when it hears about them?".

Re:

Firstly, it beggars belief that the millions of artists who willingly signed with mainstream labels are more stupid than the average Techdirt poster.
David Bowie, Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen, Joe Strummer, Lou Reed all stupid, and apparently willing to ally themselves with 'rapists and pimps'?
Really the vitriolic fantasy world most of you live in tells a lot about the threat you feel from other ordinary people just going about their business.
Secondly, no artist is forced to sign a mainstream record company contract. And ALL those contracts are negotiable. The article above is wrong in that regard. You are not forced to give all your copyright away. It's negotiable.
Thirdly. again the article is wrong. It's not about 'venture capital', it's about owning what you pay for. If a record company pays for 100% of a records recording costs, they own it. Many artists are now recording their own music at their own expense, then licensing the recording to a label (if they want to go that way).
So the article is ill informed as to the basics of how the modern industry works.

Re:

Odd how people seem to think that the recording costs are the most significant.

I'd say the thousands of hours a band practices and works to create their own music are efforts far more worthy of owning the copyright. Really what happened is the recording industry held the means to produce a recording hostage and demanded an extortionists rate. Fortunately the tech industry has been slowly but surely eroding that position of power.

Re:

About the who 3rd point. They still take money from the band to repay the services they provided.

The artists go to the label to arrange to make an album. They offer to help the artist use their facilities to make & distribute the album, but the artist will be required to pay that back on top of interest (% of sales). Once the artist has paid back the label for the use of their services, the label keeps the copyright.

So, I go to a banker trying to arrange to buy a house. They offer to lend me the money to buy the house if I will pay back all the money they gave me, plus interest, and in the end they get to keep the deed.

Re:

Secondly, no artist is forced to sign a mainstream record company contract. And ALL those contracts are negotiable. The article above is wrong in that regard. You are not forced to give all your copyright away. It's negotiable.

Show me artists who signed mainstream deals where they retained their copyright, and I'll show you a ridiculously short list of people.

Thirdly. again the article is wrong. It's not about 'venture capital', it's about owning what you pay for. If a record company pays for 100% of a records recording costs, they own it. Many artists are now recording their own music at their own expense, then licensing the recording to a label (if they want to go that way).

Really? How is that any different from venture capital? They pay to enable a company to make their product as well, but they take a much, much smaller amount of ownership.

So the article is ill informed as to the basics of how the modern industry works.

Re: Re:

Show me artists who signed mainstream deals where they retained their copyright, and I'll show you a ridiculously short list of people.

You first.
My list would be too long.
I thought you were hip to the new music business?
Fact is, since the 70's bands have been recording their own music.
Signing your life away to a label so they can pay for everything is old school.
And as I said, every contract is different, every contract is negotiable. So any blanket statement about signing away copyright is bound to fail.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, out of the millions of signed artists, a few tens, or maybe hundreds, have felt ripped off.
But have you ever read a football player cut from the team who is complimentary about the coach and management? Recording contracts often end unfortunately, that's just a fact of business. For most it's a mutual parting, which is why you don't see most artists griping about labels.
Funny you guys keep mentioning Anvil. For decades and through most of the film about them, they are busting a gut JUST to get signed to a mainstream recording contract.
Are they stupid???????

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It would be easier for you to list signed artists who have said they never had a problem with their contracts and were happy, all of the contracts, including when they very first started.

Can you provide a list of people who have gone on record or at least described to you that they have loved their contracts and were very happy, all of the contracts, even at first signing when they had never been on a label before?

Even 20 artists who've said they enjoyed their contracts and didn't feel they were slaves or taken advantage of or lost their copyrights.

I'm actually eager because I believe, from what I have read and heard, it's the other way around, millions are pissed and say nothing because that was a clause, and a few say something good because that's always permitted.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

from what I have read and heard, it's the other way around, millions are pissed and say nothing because that was a clause, and a few say something good because that's always permitted.

That's the problem with Techdirt, it's all based on what you 'read' or 'heard', not what you experienced first hand.
Does Masnick have any music industry experience? I'm pretty sure not, and yet he's happy to argue with people who do.
Anyway, you read and heard wrong. Artists are not blocked from talking about their labels. many do.
Also, you set the bar unrealistically. A label deal is a long term relationship. You never argued with your partner? Of course artists have ups and downs. There are few who are 100% happy with everything their label does. That's the nature of a relationship, partnership and compromise.
The huge gulf between being 100% happy with labels, and regarding labels as rapists, pimps, evil slave owners etc, shouldn't need my explanation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"That's the problem with Techdirt, it's all based on what you 'read' or 'heard', not what you experienced first hand."

So your comments are based on first-hand experience? Great, once you've told us who you are and what your experience is, you might have a chance of convincing Techdirt readers that things really are as you say. If you can't or won't do that, your comments will continue to sound like the self-serving defensive retorts of someone who fully understands how label deals are heavily weighted in favour of the labels' interests.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Um.. I've heard from artists who post on a few different sites that they were indeed blocked from comments, some directly, others indirectly (don't bite the hand that feeds you).

Long term? How many are long term vs one-record deals? Have you the numbers?

You say in post #64 that you're not an artist, so how do you have first hand information about contractual negotiations? Is it second hand from the artist themselves or are you their lawyer reading the contract for them? Or are you the lawyer drawing up the contract on behalf of the label, at which point you don't know what's going through the artists' minds, and they won't share their real views with you. You'd be crazy to think that. That's akin to a SW developer telling Steve Ballmer 2000 what they really think of Windows ME. They would not be honest.

So what are you then? If you do know the contractual details, then why not share them (without labeling the artist)? Ask politely and you'll receive links to sites that claim to have knowledge of contractual information that supports the slave/rapist accusation.

If that's rare, please let us know a ballpark estimate of your experience without pulling numbers out of your backside. Just a rough estimate would suffice, such as "I've met 12 top Billboard artists who showed me their contracts and they all were good." But you'd have to establish what their contracts were like when they first got signed, not after they were a commercial hit.

That's where we're coming from. We know Lady Gaga and now Adele can have more say in their contracts, or Nickelback, as they all made the labels profitable. But what about 24-Gone? Ride? Catherine Wheel? School of Fish? Rush?

They were not as lucky as say Matthew Good Band who's independent debut album hold's the Canadian record for sales. Even they didn't get all they wished for and even Matthew Good himself has explained about being pushed to add material that didn't fit the album and write a hit.

Hello Time Bomb has an interesting story to it. It was a last minute piece that was added because the label wanted it, then it was a hit, so the next several albums had the same pressure applied.

That's not creative freedom.

Rush, from their documentary, explained that they had to use high sales and a lot of arguing to allow the likes of Farewell To the Kings to be released. Of course the label felt it would flop, but it did very well and that's what won their artistic freedom. That's from the band themselves in their documentary.

Re:

Lady GaGa and Adele were new artists when they signed their deals. So they were negotiated the same as every other artist, NOT from a position of unusual power.
And as to Mathew Good and Rush, yeah, working with a label is a partnership.
If you don't want to share in decisions, don't sign up to do so. Many artists haven't.
I don't think Rush would be where they are without major label support.

Re: Re:

Lady GaGa and Adele were new artists when they signed their deals. So they were negotiated the same as every other artist, NOT from a position of unusual power.

The truths you tell when you don't realize it.

Thanks for admitting that new artists are negotiating from a powerless position. And thanks for admitting that a superstar has an "unusual" power position in the industry. Taken together, this shows that even you know that everything else you're arguing is wrong.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

WTF are you talking about? Fail how?

So the guy started as an A&R man and worked his way up. What does that have to do with School Of Fish not being a huge money maker for their label, to the point where they could actually negotiate what they wanted?

On top of that he wasn't with the band in 1990 when they released their debut. So I don't see how his non-discussion of School of Fish in that article helps prove any point or illustrate a "fail."

And according to an email with Matthew Good, in Canada A&R people are few and far between (he claimed none).

So I don't trust Anderson's "We'll find you" however it does concur with what Steve Kudrow of Anvil said in an interview with a fan (paraphrased) "Once you get your management, songs written, audience, fan-base, etc... that's when the label comes along, after you've already made it."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's the problem with Techdirt, it's all based on what you 'read' or 'heard', not what you experienced first hand.
Does Masnick have any music industry experience? I'm pretty sure not, and yet he's happy to argue with people who do.

Heh. Do you have any experience in economics or business? Because that's what we're actually talking about.

And why do you assume, incorrectly, that my information doesn't come from many people I know who are in the business?

Anyway, you read and heard wrong. Artists are not blocked from talking about their labels. many do.

I know -- personally -- some top notch artists who have told me flat out that there's a "gag order" on speaking badly about the label. This is on one label in particular... One you've heard of.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Do you have any experience in economics or business? Because that's what we're actually talking about.

Yes, I've run my own music business successfully for decades. And you?

This is on one label in particular.

What about ALL the other labels. Can you prove they have gag orders?
I can see how a label would take a dim view of their signed artist badmouthing them, but deals last for a few years, sometimes a few months if things go wrong, and you're seriously suggesting you can't bad mouth a label after your no longer contracted to them?
Fact is, there are hundreds of thousands of artists happily working with labels, and a few who are not. So what?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, I've run my own music business successfully for decades. And you?

Heh. Sure you have, sparky.

What about ALL the other labels. Can you prove they have gag orders?

No one said they all do. Why do you make stuff up. There are gag orders on many artists.

I can see how a label would take a dim view of their signed artist badmouthing them, but deals last for a few years, sometimes a few months if things go wrong, and you're seriously suggesting you can't bad mouth a label after your no longer contracted to them?

Nope. But tons of bands do badmouth their labels afterwards. And, trust me, plenty who don't do it publicly do so privately. They don't do it publicly because they don't want to be labeled "tough to work with."

Fact is, there are hundreds of thousands of artists happily working with labels, and a few who are not. So what?

Keep believing that and the labels won't have any problem. But you and I both know that's not true.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Heh. Sure you have, sparky.

It's true Mike. You are really guessing, and as you've never owned and operated a music business, or released a record, I think you are guessing from a handicapped position.
But keep on with the 'you're a nobody line' as much as you like. I'm guessing there is a reason Barack Obama doesn't use that line, or Ban Ki-moon don't ever use that tactic, even with ordinary members of the public who disagree with them. It's because they believe in what they are saying and are comfortable with their beliefs. It seems you HAVE to convince yourself I'm a nobody. Strange???
And on from that,
The big problem labels have is that people pirate music instead of buying it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Still waiting for any sign of reference, proof or link to any of the claims you laid here. You got labeled sparky BECAUSE we don't straight out believe shit here - we check it out. Sources, Mr. Anon, sources. Until that time you have no credibility - come on, you're writing as an Anonymous Coward!

It's strange that you believe you're contributing to this discussion, while we see you for what you are - a troll. And a bad one at that...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"It seems you HAVE to convince yourself I'm a nobody. Strange???"

Strange? Really?? You just bounce in here off the turnip truck, start talking mumbo jumbo, acting like some know it all bigshot without giving anyone a clue what you even do for a living and expect everyone to just accept everything you say is a fact? Anyone can anonymously claim to be anybody on the internet, but it doesn't mean what they say is true.

Seeing as how you've said nothing to prove you're not a nobody, you shouldn't expect anyone around here to think otherwise.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I can point out at least two artists who have gone ON RECORD to say that they don't make much money outside of concerts...

Lots more than two. We've discussed Trent Reznor, Radiohead, Kenny Rogers, Weird Al, Too Much Joy, Amanda Palmer, OK GO, Lyle Lovett, 30 Seconds to Mars, Counting Crows and many, many more artists who talked about how their major labels screwed them out of royalties.

Re: Re: Re:

I thought you were hip to the new music business?
Fact is, since the 70's bands have been recording their own music.
Signing your life away to a label so they can pay for everything is old school.
And as I said, every contract is different, every contract is negotiable. So any blanket statement about signing away copyright is bound to fail.

I said mainstream deal.

Name one mainstream deal for a first time artist signed prior to 2000 where the artist kept their copyright.

Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

Long answer: you clearly know nothing about the industry or what you're talking about. Each and every one of them (who is still alive) would tell you about how they got screwed - I know some of the stories (btw, is no-talent nobody Joe Fucking Strummer the best you could some up with? And "Mr. Rare Hit, Mostly Total Miss" Lou Reed? Wow, that's lame).

And I'm sure that Yoko and/or either of the two remaining Beatles would tell you endless stories about how John got screwed (not only by the "industry rapists" but by that evil criminal Richard Shithouse Nixon).

If someone who has a clue wants to chime in, have at it. But like I said - your comment makes it clear that you know nothing about the subject and you're not worth my time, so, end of discussion with you.

Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

you clearly know nothing about the industry or what you're talking about.

Ha, ha. If you only knew who I was.
The only 'clueless' one here is you claiming intelligent innovative artists who signed and resigned with major labels over decades were 'stupid'.
Last time I looked, everyone of them was a millionaire (often several times over) living in multiple mansions around the globe.
How did that happen? T-shirt sales????????

Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

Wait. Why are you using old artists(and in John's case, dead artist) as an example in an argument about the modern industry?

Back in their days copyrights as hard as diamonds and copyright trolls don't exist. And they actually all get their fair share.

If the Beatles were to have existed as a modern band though, they'll all be complaining like the rest of the artists in the industry.

Aaaaand: Ha, ha. If you only knew who I was.

We know: You are an Anonymous Coward. A faceless nobody. A disembodied voice who is as insignificant as a grain of sand. Show us who you are before saying those words. Only a coward and a sinner would hide in the mask of anonymity.

Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

You're a nobody. If you were somebody real, you'd be willing to put a name on it. But you're not. You just pretend you're someone anyone cares about by playing anonymous online.

The only 'clueless' one here is you claiming intelligent innovative artists who signed and resigned with major labels over decades were 'stupid'.

You have to admit that for most of their lifetimes, they had no other choice if they wanted to be a successful musician.

Yes, that's changing in the past few years, and many are, in fact, now striking out on their own.

Last time I looked, everyone of them was a millionaire (often several times over) living in multiple mansions around the globe.

Yes, because the system made a small handful of people super wealthy, while screwing over the vast majority of artists they signed, clearly it's a good deal.

Of course, if you ask many of those super successful artists if they made more on touring or recorded music sales, many would tell you touring. Lyle Lovett has talked about how he's yet to see a dime in royalties.

How did that happen? T-shirt sales????????

Why do you always go back to this trope? No one has argued that t-shirt sales is the answer. This doesn't make you look "clued in." It makes you look the exact opposite.

Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

You're a nobody. If you were somebody real, you'd be willing to put a name on it. But you're not.

Dream on Mike. The absolute reality is you don't know. I've read enough on this site not to want to be personally called a rapist and a pimp by your members just because I have a different opinion, so I remain AC thanks all the same.

You have to admit that for most of their lifetimes, they had no other choice if they wanted to be a successful musician.

But the reality is there is NO revolution against the mainstream labels. You and your type expect us to believe intelligent innovators like Bowie and Dylan accepted being raped and pimped. If you talk to these artists (as I HAVE) the topic rarely gets a mention.
You say artists are only recently striking out on their own, But The Beatles started Apple in the 1960's. The punks and new wavers started their own record labels - like Joy Division on factory. The Smiths went with indie distribution through Rough Trade.
If the majority got screwed as you claim, the majority would have revolted and found a new way to record and distribute. But even after low cost recording and internet distribution, the majority still seek a label deal.
It's only people like you that have never released a record and never had a record deal who seem to think record deals are evil. Weird don't you think?

But, if you don't want to read the link, let me give you an excerpt from it...

"When I signed my first artist in 2003, we did a more traditional artist royalty type of recording agreement. We also signed a co-publishing agreement with the label’s publishing entity. Even then, the labels were viewed as banks and the agreements they gave bands were, at best, really bad loans. Bands would sign away most of their rights for a recording advance, maybe some commitments to tour support and a whole lot of “potential.” Once you sign an ERA &/OR EPA, you are largely at the mercy of the company. Your future will rely heavily on the label’s ability to work your record and support your efforts to exploit your art. The problem with being a smaller band signed to a deal is that you rarely, if ever, see any money from the sale of your recorded music. These deals are structured in a way that the bulk of the financial burden is shouldered by your 10-18% of MSRP (less all applicable deductions, of course). Selling 100k albums on your own would be a hefty pay check where as a selling 100k albums with a recording company may not even recoup your debt to the label."

So, wanna try your argument again? This time with some real facts to back it up?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

"You and your type expect us to believe intelligent innovators like Bowie and Dylan accepted being raped and pimped."

No, we all know that Bowie and Dylan were among a few very successful drops in an oceans of musicians. We also know that the experiences of Bowie and Dylan are pretty irrelevant in a discussion about the modern music industry, and yet you keep bringing them up.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

here's what trent reznor thinks of piracy:

“Just because technology exists where you can duplicate something, that doesn’t give you the right to do it. There’s nothing wrong with giving some tracks away or bits of stuff that’s fine. But it’s not everybody’s right. Once I record something, it’s not public domain to give it away freely. And that’s not trying to be the outdated musician who is trying to ‘stop technology. I love technology.” - trent reznor

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

Artists have a wide variety of opinions, and many of those opinions change over time. It is easy to find examples of artists on each side, as well as many who have mixed feelings. You can't win an argument about artists in general if you're selectively quoting the ones that seem to be on your side. So, your response was pointless.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

here's what trent reznor thinks of piracy:

“Just because technology exists where you can duplicate something, that doesn’t give you the right to do it. There’s nothing wrong with giving some tracks away or bits of stuff that’s fine. But it’s not everybody’s right. Once I record something, it’s not public domain to give it away freely. And that’s not trying to be the outdated musician who is trying to ‘stop technology. I love technology.” - trent reznor

Or.

"Steal it," [Reznor] said. "Steal away. Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'. Because one way or another, these motherf—ers will get it through their head that they're ripping people off and that’s not right." -- Trent Reznor

Or.

"I steal music too, I'm not gonna say I don't." -- Trent Reznor

For what it's worth, your comment comes years before mine. And I've spoken with Trent enough to know that the view you describe above is not the view he has today.

Trent has an open mind, learned, grew and embraced his fans. And they've embraced him quite nicely in return.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

"After all, we as artists dedicate our lives to producing the best music we can. It's been a painful process for me personally (to see the changes in the music industry). But should I be angry at the audience that wants to hear music so much, an audience that is so passionate about hearing it they go online to get it two weeks before the music debuts? No, I want them to be that way."

Reznor has become a revolutionary figure to the file-sharing community. A video ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=TJ5iHaV0dP4 ) appeared recently at YouTube that showed him during a concert performance lamenting the high prices of CDs. Fans whooped it up when Reznor told them to go ahead and steal his music.

-------

"I don't know what the future holds," he said. "I don't know what model is going to work. I do know relationships between music labels and artist like myself aren't going well. These days when digital elements come into play labels have dealt with them generally poorly. It has gotten to a place where it couldn't be worse. Their treatment of artists has less sympathy and it's more like 'What can we get out of you?' My only concern has always been that my audience is treated fairly."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

I've read enough on this site not to want to be personally called a rapist and a pimp by your members just because I have a different opinion, so I remain AC thanks all the same.

Ha. You're full of it. If you actually had knowledge to impart, people would respect that and no one would call you that. We've had lots of people who *respectfully* disagreed with us, and brought serious knowledge in doing so, and people were very engaged with them.

But you didn't do that. You insult and attack and make statements that have no basis in reality.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd have no reason to fear. That's why I know you're a nobody pretending to be a somebody. A legend in your own mind and no one else's.

But the reality is there is NO revolution against the mainstream labels.

You have this problem where you pretend people said something they didn't. I never said there was "a revolution against mainstream labels." In fact I've argued repeatedly that there are places for major labels. My problem is with their standard deals.

If you talk to these artists (as I HAVE) the topic rarely gets a mention.

I talk to lots of artists who *always* talk about how the labels have screwed them. Tons. Once again, it's clear you're a nobody pretending to be a somebody.

If the majority got screwed as you claim, the majority would have revolted and found a new way to record and distribute.

There was no other way to distribute. Even the folks you describe who started their own labels did distribution deals with the majors.

And, the "new way to record and distribute" is called computers and the internet. Welcome.

But even after low cost recording and internet distribution, the majority still seek a label deal.

As I've said there are plenty of reasons for some acts to work with labels. I've never been anti-label at all, and have argued over and over again how they could adapt and be more helpful.

But you should look at the trendlines, and you'll see that fewer and fewer of your "majority" (which I'd question) are still seeking that major label deal.

It's only people like you that have never released a record and never had a record deal who seem to think record deals are evil.

Um. Okay. You have no clue what you're talking about. It's difficult to throw a stone without finding a musician upset with their first record deal with a major. They're everywhere. Perhaps if you actually knew some you'd learn.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

That's why I know you're a nobody pretending to be a somebody. A legend in your own mind and no one else's.
Once again, it's clear you're a nobody pretending to be a somebody.

It's actually sad that people think you are a commentator with some gravitas, and yet when you come up against someone who disagrees with you, all you can do is tell them they';re a nobody.
Well dream on in your delusional way Mr Masnick. You're absolutely wrong, but I have no need to prove it to you.

I've never been anti-label at all, and have argued over and over again how they could adapt and be more helpful.

Hard to think you are not anti label when you say things like:the system made a small handful of people super wealthy, while screwing over the vast majority of artists they signed

The "vast majority are screwed", but you've never been 'anti label'?
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

You have no clue what you're talking about. It's difficult to throw a stone without finding a musician upset with their first record deal with a major. They're everywhere. Perhaps if you actually knew some you'd learn.

I know plenty. I work with them everyday (unlike you), have done for decades.
As I said earlier, a lot of artists say they're upset with their first deal, because every first deal comes to an end. Just like every football player leaves a team after being dropped.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

It's actually sad that people think you are a commentator with some gravitas, and yet when you come up against someone who disagrees with you, all you can do is tell them they';re a nobody.

Heh. Lots of people disagree with me and I don't call them nobodies. In fact, there are some "somebodies" who disagree with me and I'm happy to talk to them (and do so all the time). I'm currently in an email debate with a "somebody" who vehemently disagrees with me. I'd never call him a nobody.

I didn't call you a nobody because you disagree with me. I called you a nobody because it's clear from your words and knowledge that you are, in fact, a nobody.

The "vast majority are screwed", but you've never been 'anti label'?

You seem to have trouble with basic concepts of logic. I'm not anti-label. I'm anti-bad label deals which did, in fact, screw over the vast majority of artists. What I support are more forward looking labels who do more reasonable deals. I'm pro-label for labels that don't screw over artists.

Why do you support screwing over artists?

As I said earlier, a lot of artists say they're upset with their first deal, because every first deal comes to an end. Just like every football player leaves a team after being dropped.

Funny. I was recently at a party where two artists that were "dropped" from their major label deals were celebrating like crazy because they fought so hard to get out of those awful deals and were thrilled to be out on their own. Fun party. Good music. I don't see too many bands upset about losing their deals these days. Too much opportunity to do a better deal elsewhere.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

I didn't call you a nobody because you disagree with me. I called you a nobody because it's clear from your words and knowledge that you are, in fact, a nobody.

Surely you are better than this. Is this an adult debate or high school? Amazing. Oh well.

Why do you support screwing over artists?

Hmm did I say that? I don't think I did. I don't like to see any artist screwed. I support artists choice. The right to choose to self release, or the right to sign with a major, or whatever they want.
It's up to them, not up to me, OR YOU.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

Surely you are better than this. Is this an adult debate or high school? Amazing. Oh well.

But you ARE a nobody - as for example I am. While I am not afraid to sign in I'm still a nobody at this topic - I don't know enough of the topic to contribute. If this was my blog, I'd tell you off just the same (not as eloquent but at least that blunt).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

The right to choose to self release, or the right to sign with a major, or whatever they want.
It's up to them, not up to me, OR YOU.

And, um, no one has ever said otherwise. We've argued all along that everyone has the right to release how they want.

But, if the market isn't interested in your chosen method of release (or, aren't interested in supporting you because they don't like you), then you shouldn't lash out mistakenly and blame third parties who aren't the problem.

Look, I'm sure some artists would still like "the choice" of making their living painting frescoes. But the market for frescoes has diminished. Ditto the market for stained glass windows.

Perhaps the market for releasing music the traditional way is declining as well.

But we do see -- every day -- artists who embrace smart new methods of connecting with fans being able to make a hell of a lot more money than they did otherwise.

And that's the kind of "choice" we've been supporting all along. Why you'd argue otherwise suggests (again) that you are arguing with the strawman in your mind, rather than anything anyone here has ever said. You might want to look into that.

Perhaps the market for releasing music the traditional way is declining as well.

Right. It's declining because everyone knows they can obtain free music from unauthorized downloads.
Wait.. you hadn't forgotten about mass unauthorized downloading had you?
Here's the real funny thing, you can't download stained glass windows, or frescoes. So they seem like odd analogies to reach for.

I can't download a CD either, I can download the music on the CD, sort of like I can take a picture of the window or fresco. Both are copies, yet for some reason some like to argue that they are different. I really do not understand it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

DC says:"I'm guessing, even if you work with "them" every day, you work to screw them over."

With "them" referring to the artists.

Then Nobody responds:"You guess wrong.I'm most often screwed over by people pirating."

With complete disregard for the artists and making it all about "him", sounding like a complete corporate label douchebag, because he's already stated that "he's" not an artist.

If you do in fact work for a label, you just completely justified the worldwide hate for your kind once again, because no one gives a damn about you, the control freak middleman out to exploit the artists for every cent you can get then kick them to the curb once their sales begin to drop. However we do have a lot of love and respect for the artists themselves which you do not as I've just pointed out through your own words.

With complete disregard for the artists and making it all about "him", sounding like a complete corporate label douchebag, because he's already stated that "he's" not an artist.

The level of concentration and therefore debate at this site is extremely poor.
I said i wasn't 'an artist of some stature', I also said i wasn't the SAC you all seemed to think i was.
The realities of the modern music industry is you have to diversify and multi-task.
You have to be an artist, a recording engineer, a record label, etc, etc.

Same goes to you, you're clearly not a real fan or consumer, if you were, you wouldn't be spewing what you're spewing. You're not a techie either.

So if you think only people who have been in the know should be commenting on things they know about, why the fuck is Hollywood and their Music Industry Bitches (RIAA/labels) writing laws and demonizing technological breakthroughs that don't kiss their ass? They clearly have a limited knowledge on the subject, so why should we listen to anything they have to say?

Do you see how the appeal to authority method of arguing is a fallacy?

Contrary to your belief, you don't need to be an expert to understand and even propose solutions to a problem. You do need to listen more though, and you can't expect people to listen to you when you shit on them.

"The level of concentration and therefore debate at this site is extremely poor."

Then pick a damn name to post with already, fake or otherwise, to clear up any confusion. You're all over the place. The snowflakes help until there's hundreds of comments, and they can change with a page refresh.

I just fail to see you convincing anyone here of anything except that you're completely full of yourself.

Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

Well, do tell us who you are. If you're so well informed and connected certainly it wouldn't be hard to come out of that smelly diaper closet you inhabit and enlighten us with your wisdom under your real name.

One of those Beatles wrote a song about how badly they were screwed by their publisher "Northern Songs Ltd" which EMI/Capitol set up after they got around to signing them. And considering their record sales, concert attendance and popularity they could have been paid a tenth of a pittance and ended up wealthy on that alone. And you did notice that first chance The Beatles had they set up their own label and distribution.

Oh yeah, George Harrsion's song was "Only A Northern Song". Listen to it sometime.

It was Northern Songs that sold The Beatles entire songbook catalogue to Micheal Jackson over the objections of Yoko, Paul, George and Ringo who had put in a better bid on it.

The reality was and is that an artist signing with a major label is basically forced to sign over copyright to their material and agree on the label's choice of publisher unless the artist has a past where they've controlled both and become successful by recording and publishing as independents. Something many do now.

So, until O Wise One Giggling, you have the balls to post under your own name you won't mind if we continue to think of you as as a clueless ignoramus.

Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

Yeah, I'm sure The Beatles thought they were worth MORE money.
But the fact is they were successful, rich and powerful by their early twenties, despite EMI if I take your opinion. McCartney was still releasing his albums though EMI as a multi-millionaire in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
What was Lennon's last label? Geffen?
But these guys were rich, experienced and opinionated enough not to associate their name with with, or put their music out through labels that were abusing other artists as pimps and rapists would.
So what do we have here. Actual politically aware artists signing to major labels versus inexperienced techdirt posters who think they know better.
I know which side I believe.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

I too have worked in the music industry for decades. I talk to artists. A lot. I have experience in this subject, because it's what I do every day.

Our contracts are awesome. We give the band money and help them sell their music to the public. We take a cut of all sales, the band has to pay us back plus interest out of their share of the sales and then we retain copyright on the songs. Win-win for me.

I won't tell you who I am, you'll just have to take my word for it. Also, people who don't believe me can suck an egg.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

I believe you, The rouge rouge. For those wondering why I believe him, it's because I work with him. He's right, we can't tell you who we are or who we work for. But you'll just have to take our word for it that we are very much in the know regarding artists and the music industry in general (we've also got more legal knowledge and experience than the rest of you combined, while also having time to know with 100% accuracy how things work in the film and television industries). And if you don't believe us, well... it's because you don't know anything.

Hey this is fun! I get to lie, claims others don't know stuff and when called out on what I say respond with, "Well, I'd love to tell you who I am but I cannot. My reputation is so big and amazing that by commenting on such an insignificant blog, filled with pirates and their anti-artists/copyright ways, it might be hurt. You'll just have to trust me I am and know what I say I am and know." Woo! Let's all play this game from now on!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.

Sorry but no one had any options back in the 70's and 80's and 90's. There was no Internet for file sharing until the late 90's.

So your choice was the ultra expensive route of record yourself, drive to record stores and beg them to put you on a shelf (many did not and from what I read that was label control preventing such things). That was your only means.

Things have changed so yes they could have gone on their own if the Internet existed back then with the maturity and popularity that it has now.

The copyright that is "given away" is the ownership of the particular recording, aka the master tape, that the label is paying for, not the song itself. The copyright for the melody and lyrics will always belong to the person/persons who composed it, that copyright is non transferable.

Re:

Re: Re:

You do realize that by saying "At last, someone who knows what they are talking about in this thread" you've included yourself along with everyone else in this thread (except the person you're replying to) as not knowing what you're talking about, right?

And this folks is why we should pause and read what we wrote before we hit submit. Then again, it is probably the first truthful thing you've ever said on this site. So kudos to you.

The sad part is if we knew who you were, with your claims to be an artist of some stature, although that's highly doubtful, we'd probably boycott you on principal alone. Not for what you say, but for how you say it. Namely, you act like a dick. Then again, it's possible you actually are an artist. In which case we wouldn't boycott you, we might give your work a listen, but we'd probably regret the money spent doing so, and we'd realize blaming pirates for your failure is just you're way of coping with not having any talent and just sucking as a musician in general.

Be a man, tell us who you are. Plenty of other artists come here and do so. Some big, some small. Some on labels, some independent. Their opinions are respected, even if disagreed with. Why? Because they're willing to stand by their words and beliefs.

Sadly, I'd expect nothing less of an Anonymous Coward such as yourself to say "Well, I can't reveal who I am but suffice it to say I'm kind of a big deal and I know all". Truly laughable.

Re: Re: Re:

The sad part is if we knew who you were, with your claims to be an artist of some stature, although that's highly doubtful, we'd probably boycott you on principal alone.

You DO understand there can be multiple people posting as AC right?
Or are you as clueless about that as you are on the workings of the music industry.
I've never claimed to be an 'artist of some stature'.
However, I have ACTUAL, and lengthy music industry experience. And it's clear anyone who claims record company employees across the board are 'rapists and pimps' and calls Joe Strummer a 'no talent nobody' is either 'clueless' themselves, or more likely a very sad and angry individual.
What a shame you've never met these people in person as I have.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No I was giving you your attitude back.

I've never met anyone really famous. I don't proclaim to have met famous people either, then again I'm not pulling an appeal to authority fallacy argument.

You've just given attacks against Mike saying "I don't agree, I know people." But listing famous people by name does not support your argument. Now quoting some of their contractual agreements sounds far more believable. Providing links to their sites where they rant is more believable.

Mike has done that, true not in every single post does he link to every single site, he keeps them relevant to the post.

You won't be attacked if you don't launch an attack, so you CAN use your real name. It is all about how you deliver your message.

Some will disagree, duh, it's the Internet some disagree just because they are bored and need hobbies. But most here will want to hear what you have to say.

When you hide, you're not going to get any believable points, especially when you're basically saying "I call bullshit" and "I know, I'm an expert" without providing any credentials.

I am currently AC because I have not yet logged in on my own comp (logged in by default at work).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You DO understand there can be multiple people posting as AC right?

The problem is that you receive a snowflake every time you post a comment to the same article, and when those match, we can figure out it is you. Unless, of course, you are using the same proxy server as another poster, and both posting anonymously.

You show up as a red circle with an X through it, and have said previously that you are a musician of some stature. Since you have spoken previously, and you have said that the Anonymous Coward you are replying to, who does not have your snowflake is the only person here who knows what their talking about, I believe the other Anonymous Coward's comment is correct. I do often time have to explain other people's punchlines, even when everyone else gets it, and I am usually the life of the party (as if that really needs a /sarc tag.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The problem is that you receive a snowflake every time you post a comment to the same article, and when those match, we can figure out it is you.

Ahh well, someone other than me is confused then, because I never claimed to be an artist of some stature.
I have a lot of direct music industry experience, and rub shoulders with intelligent artists who sign major record deals. It's simply unrealistic to claim they did this under duress, or because they were stupid. In fact it's the norm for artists to sign a deal with a label based on the personalities at the label they will be dealing with.
I'm sure it's some comfort to your collective delusion to assume they are either stupid or forced into label slavery, but in fact they are usually excited to partner with a label. And these are artists with a social conscience, an independent voice and many times years of music industry experience behind them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ahh well, someone other than me is confused then, because I never claimed to be an artist of some stature.

Oh, I am sorry, when you said "Ha, ha. If you only knew who I was." I figured you were an artist that we cared about. My bad.

I'm sure it's some comfort to your collective delusion to assume they are either stupid or forced into label slavery

You do realize that there is more than one speaker here. I never said anything about artists being stupid or forced into label slavery. I was just pointing out that the other anonymous coward said something that you seemed to miss in your reply, about being more than one AC present in the discussion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Make no mistake, however, that the culture that has been bred over the course of the last 10+ years of simply thinking that all music should be available for free is wrong, and immoral; plain and simple.This mentality has created an environment where it is more and more difficult for artists, particularly up-and-coming ones, to survive and sustain themselves. We, as artists, love and appreciate our fans more than you know. We know that we could not exist without you, but we don’t steal from you, not in any way, not ever. Wrong is wrong, no matter what color you paint it, or how you try to spin it.” - DAVID DRAIMAN / DISTURBED

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Citation Needed... And that guy's name is DAVID DRAIMAN, not ANONYMOUS COWARD....

And I think David is clearly thinking with his butt: If he just throw away that idea that they needed middlemen and start thinking up a better way to distribute his music to the fans, he's gonna find he'll earn a lot more dough than he had before.

And that post: can he even call himself a real artist? It's like he's just making music to make cash, period.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

There are multiple people posting as ACs. I know this for a fact because I am one of them. What you don't seem to understand, and as has already been pointed out, is that there is a snowflake (varies) next to your username. Yours has remained constant. You replied to another AC. The fact that you did so and that your snowflake and theirs are both different means you are two different people. You DO understand that by default, based on what you stated, which I previously quoted, your comment applies to yourself as well, right? Or do I need to break down the entire sentence for you? If it'll help you understand I'd be more than willing.

Regarding the bit about you claiming to be an artist, well that may be a mistake on my part. But I'm basing that on your writing style. As I've said in other articles, writing styles are quite unique and it's easy enough to determine who's who (even using those using the AC moniker) based solely on their writing and writing style. Yours is QUITE unique. I have little doubt that you are the same AC who has previously claimed to be an artist of some sort. You can deny that. And I may be wrong, but it's highly doubtful. As I said, writing styles. You may want to change yours if you want to truly be anonymous. Like I already said, you come off as a bit of a dick. While there are some people here who are rude and short with others, there's only one who stands out the way you do.

"However, I have ACTUAL, and lengthy music industry experience. And it's clear anyone who claims record company employees across the board are 'rapists and pimps' and calls Joe Strummer a 'no talent nobody' is either 'clueless' themselves, or more likely a very sad and angry individual.
What a shame you've never met these people in person as I have."

What's really interesting is that I in my previous comment said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about "rapists and pimps" or called Joy Strummer a "no talent nobody". I admire Joe Strummer in point of fact, so I would never call him a no talent nobody. You seriously have a problem of some sort. Especially when you look at what I said and what you respond with. A reasonable person would immediately realize you're trying to put words in my mouth. Well that and for some odd reason you always seem to think I'm Mike. You did this yesterday as well. "Clueless" and "a very sad and angry individual" both describe you well though. Based on what you say and how you say it. Again, kudos to you. It's quite astounding to see you speak honestly, even if you're trying to paint others in a manner which is more descriptive of yourself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Whatever dude. You can remain confused as far as I'm concerned.
In my contributions to this site I've NEVER claimed to be an artist of some stature, or even an artist. I've never claimed you were Mike (weird confusion you have!).
I'm not putting words in your mouth either.
I'm taking part in this debate, and some here refer to record industry employees as 'rapists and pimps' and seem to think educated and intelligent artists are 'stupid'.
So, in my opinion you are one of many arguing against a reasonable view, and allying yourself with some of the most ridiculous comments ever spoken about the music industry. That's your choice.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Back up your claims with evidence, AC 64 (Red AC), and prove that you know anyone in the music business at all. Or provide a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Now. Any other response, including silence and/or imitating/parodying this one, will be considered such a retraction.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You DO understand there can be multiple people posting as AC right?
Or are you as clueless about that as you are on the workings of the music industry.
I've never claimed to be an 'artist of some stature'.
However, I have ACTUAL, and lengthy music industry experience. And it's clear anyone who claims record company employees across the board are 'rapists and pimps' and calls Joe Strummer a 'no talent nobody' is either 'clueless' themselves, or more likely a very sad and angry individual.
What a shame you've never met these people in person as I have."

That was your previous reply to me. By reading it, one could easily infer, based on what you said, that I had said something along the lines of claiming "record company employees across the board are 'rapists and pimps' and calls Joe Strummer a 'no talent nobody'". Now would you like to revise your statement about not putting words in my mouth? Because based on that, it's apparent that is what you were doing. I never stated any such thing and yet out of nowhere you brought that up. Now, if you want to make blanket statements that are not fact about the people on this site, by all means. Go ahead. But if you want to put words in my mouth, be prepared to be called out on it.

In fact, can you show me where at all in this thread anyone has called record industry employees "rapists and pimps" or that artists are "stupid"? Go ahead. Show me, I'll wait.

I am not arguing at all against a reasonable point of view or allying myself with others. In fact, if you bothered at all to read the comments in a threaded manner, you'd easily see that all I have said so far was that you included yourself in the "at last someone who knows what they're talking about" bit. (Meaning you don't know what you were talking about, because up to that point no one who had commented apparently did, which is the main point I was making by quoting you). And the only other thing I said is that writing styles are unique, so contrary to what you're claiming suddenly or not, you're writing style is either uncannily similar to the one AC who claims to be an artists and post anonymous because he's scared of the pirates (namely everyone here but himself) or you are that AC. That was implied on my part. Nothing more, nothing less was stated by myself.

If you can't follow the conversation try reading a bit more slowly and responding to things that are actually said. Quote something. Reply to it. Quote something else. Reply to that. And so on and so forth. Don't start bringing up things that haven't been stated and replying to what you imagined I said or others have said. Technically, the one showing confusion here is yourself. I'm lucid beyond belief and clearly able to follow the conversation, which is more than I can say for yourself (your comments so far are proof of that).

Now, we can stop here or we can continue. The choice is yours? The one coming off as looking foolish and a bit confused is you. Not me. Also, you're not taking part in any debate. You're making wild claims based on things no one has said and then responding, partially, to what they do say when they try and correct you. That is not "taking part in this debate". That's you going off, then going off more when people are like "wtf are you talking about, sunshine".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I think that shit is fucking bullshit. Whoever put my shit on the Internet, I want to meet that motherf***er and beat the shit out of him, because I picture this scrawny little dickhead going ‘I got Eminem’s new CD! I got Eminem’s new CD! I’m going to put it on the Internet.’ I think that anybody who tries to make excuses for that shit is a fucking bitch.”
- EMINEM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

One person made the "rapists and pimps" comments and you immediately try and tar and feather everyone here with it.

That's why you're a joke. If you want to have a serious discussion, folks here will do that. If you want to be a jackass, well, don't expect anyone to take you seriously when we know you're a nobody.

Stop with the 'nobody' line Mike, seriously. It makes you look weak and afraid.
As for the rapists and pimps line. You used to censor off color comments and hide them behind a pink warning.
If you don't want your site to look like a joke, you shouldn't let your followers call ordinary music industry workers pimps and rapists. Rape is a very serious crime, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO with music and the debate we are having now.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike doesn't censor the comments, the users do.
Plainly a few people here have confused you with another AC who also posts as hurricanehead.
To be fair, it's an easy confusion to make as you both repeat the same points, in very similar wording, in a quite aggressive and insulting fashion whilst cherry-picking data points.
It would be easy enough to avoid this confusion by just signing in with a pseudonym. You don't have to use your real name (though that might garner you a lot more respect) but a username would help the discussion along quite a bit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Regarding the bit about you claiming to be an artist, well that may be a mistake on my part. But I'm basing that on your writing style. As I've said in other articles, writing styles are quite unique and it's easy enough to determine who's who (even using those using the AC moniker) based solely on their writing and writing style. Yours is QUITE unique. I have little doubt that you are the same AC who has previously claimed to be an artist of some sort.

You aren't alone. Several of us made the same connection. I was looking back at previous comments, and I could swear they made a comment about being an artist in a previous article in response to me, along with the same statement of "if you only knew who I am." I challenged them before to name themselves...but they didn't respond. Anyone can be an anonymous troll on the internet, but it takes huge balls to be a named troll.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“…somebody should fight for fellow artists, because this is madness. Music has become tap water, a utility, where for me it’s a sacred thing, so I’m a little offended. The Internet has emasculated rather than liberated artists…” - Bono

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

his obscene wodges of tax-efficient-cash-funneled-through-switzerland... ;¬)

Really though, cherry-picking quotes from the top 1% of the recording artists* is hardly representative of the bulk of the industry now is it? How about some quotes from those in the middle or lower quartiles?

Hogwash

AC #1 states:

"The copyright that is "given away" is the ownership of the particular recording, aka the master tape, that the label is paying for, not the song itself. The copyright for the melody and lyrics will always belong to the person/persons who composed it, that copyright is non transferable."

Nobody follows up with:

"Perfect.
At last, someone who knows what they are talking about in this thread."

So explain to me then, if the labels only own the "master tape" of one particular recording of a song, how is it that the labels can issue DMCA takedowns for live performances recorded by fans or cover versions of songs? Happens all the time and the labels have absolutely nothing to do with these recordings.

Re: Re:

You all need to get out of the mindset that anyone who has a different experience to you, or has a different opinion, is a troll, or an asshole.
It's just doesn't represent informed debate. More like a low level high school argument.

Re: Re: Re:

Out of curiosity, can you point to anywhere in this thread where a dissenting opinion has been presented above kindergarten level of debate? As ever, I see lots of name calling and "I'm right because I know the industry but I won't tell you how", but not anybody not being a troll or asshole.

If people are acting like trolls and assholes, they get calls such.

If somebody with a different experience actually wants to start an adult debate, they are free to. If that's rare, there may be a reason for that, and it's not the people calling them out for being trolls...

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Really?
I haven't attacked ANYONE, or called anyone a name.
I'm saying in my experience, the vast majority of artists are not ripped off by labels. Masnick can disagree all he likes, but he hasn't proven the vast majority of artists are ripped off either. It's more a matter of opinion on his part I guess.
Anyway, it's just funny many of you spend more time telling an AC they are a nobody, than answering that AC's points with irrefutable evidence.
Of course, if the vast majority of artists are happy to sign with labels, you have no other tactic than to try and dismiss someone as a nobody, clueless, an asshole, a troll etc, etc.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

'Appeal to Authority'? Just because you say you have the experience doesn't mean we believe you. I could say I personally know a few artist, myself (true! We know the Go-Gos, for instance, through our friends/landlords who are close personal friends), but without revealing who I am and the names down the line you have no way of knowing if what I'm saying is truth or fiction. The same goes with you. Without any justification or verification, we would need to take you at your word. We will not do that. We don't do that with people who agree with us, why would we do it with someone who childishly attacks us?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

But you haven't provided any evidence yourself.....

In my experience people can say (type?) anything they want on the Internet. You can't expect anyone to believe you when you claim to have decades of music industry experience without any proof other than your written word, can you?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Are you honestly surprised no one believes your claims? Really?

No. Did i say i was surprised? No.
I'm just surprised most of you expend so much energy telling a mystery poster they are a nobody, rather than taking on the issues in an insightful way. Especially Masnick. he's told me I'm a nobody about a dozen times in this thread. And he has no idea really. It's pure guess work.
But it fills up space, that would otherwise have to be filled with intelligent debate. I guess it probably makes him feel good too.

Re: Re: Re:

>You all need to get out of the mindset that anyone who has a different experience to you, or has a different opinion, is a troll, or an asshole.

I didn't call him an asshole. I called him out on his inability to make an argument without falling back on his fallacious accusations that we're all unethical pirates. He also claimed that many artists hate Techdirt, and that the users here are permanently censoring his posts beyond retrieval.

So I invite him, as I have done so multiple times, that if there is such a deluge of opposition to Techdirt, they can come and vote all his comments as insightful. They don't have to leave names or comments. All they need to do is appear as IP addresses to show that this opposition of hate, consisting of artists, exists.

Until then, his alleged huge anti-Techdirt crowd is a baseless whim of his imagination, and until he proves otherwise, he will be called out on that.

Lady GaGa and Adele were new artists when they signed their deals. So they were negotiated the same as every other artist, NOT from a position of unusual power.

So you're agreeing with what I wrote then? "But you'd have to establish what their contracts were like when they first got signed, not after they were a commercial hit."

Point being, as other artists have ranted, you either do what they say (unless you've made the label rich) or you don't sign, no other choice. If you have examples of artists first signing and not being given the "take it or leave it" option, please list them.

So while "rapist/pimp/slave master" are exaggerated terms, they have been uttered in similar form from many former and still current label artists.

Many who say such things say "everyone we know..." just like David Lowery saying everyone he knows (and extrapolated to everyone) royalties were well above %12. However, DeeLite's female vocalist replied in a comment saying everyone she knows is stuck with %12. So she says "don't generalize" to him. I posted the link a few weeks ago and don't feel like searching for it. Sorry.

So I would not generalize that every label is a rapist, however I would not generalize that only a small number of artists are being exploited, as you have implied with "partnership" analogies. Please tell me what artists who are not Nickelback or Rush who can stand up to their label and get what they want?

Raw numbers, I am willing to bet, will illustrate that, as I said before, only a few have say in their own contracts beyond "No." to which the label will respond with "Fine, give us back the money we lent you plus these extra fees."

Re:

Point being, as other artists have ranted, you either do what they say (unless you've made the label rich) or you don't sign, no other choice. If you have examples of artists first signing and not being given the "take it or leave it" option, please list them.

Almost all signed artists.
The fact is there is a whole industry in contract negotiation,
There are teams of entertainment lawyers working for artists, as well as established managers and management companies.
You are never told 'take it or leave it' when it comes to your recording contract. It's a negotiation.
Of course, once you've signed up to be in a partnership, it's not acceptable to ignore your partners suggestions completely.
Sometimes an artist will suggest recording their album on Endeavor, while orbiting the earth, then when the label says it's a ridiculous idea, the artist whines to the press their label controls them and treats them like a slave.

Re: Re:

all I see is a bunch of whining that Tenenbaum lost his plea for an appeal at the Supreme Court... Seems like the Harvard team just does not do well with understanding the actual law as opposed to a made up fantasy of what they think the law should be... Neeson and Lessig both strike out on Copyright... and that's the best you've got?

I see a lot of effort spent on trying to convince a lot of people of a lot of lies, fortunately, the supreme court justices are not so gullible...

What the hell?

Racketeering?

I have thought for decades that record -and- book publishers are basically extorting the copyright by insisting that they will not promote your product unless you sign over your rights. Sure book publishers pay an advance, but that is never clearly listed as purchasing the copyright, just a condition of the contract.

Maybe it is time the US Code Title 18, RICO LAWS are used. Not that I would expect it would ever happen.

In the old days, publishers were the only outlet (other than vanity publishers). Today it is far easier to publish and promote yourself electronically. Still marketing channels are not easy to come by. I would just like to see a little more transparency and less extortion by the publisher/promoters.

Re: Re: Racketeering?

again with the Pirate Bay. I note that you make no mention of Bandcamp, Soundcloud, Ubetoo, CDBaby or any of the other myriad of distribution agencies that offer a far better return than any of the legacy labels.
But you're right in a way, they're not gatekeepers, they're middlemen providing a useful and valuable service. Hence they're able to build a business model in the current environment without trying to screw over the rest of the web whilst they're at it.

Re: Re: Racketeering?

pirate bay = 100% of the artists money

Huh? Anyone who believes that Pirate Bay actually gets something other than Ad money is mad. They don't get anything from the artist. They don't sell the music. They distribute it... FOR FREE. Which is the point of piracy.

The comments here have been a fascinating read. One side has a name, no experience in the field in question (sorry Mike, but you don't work for a label, and I don't believe have ever worked for a label), and a few pieces of anecdotal evidence. The other side claims expert knowledge in the field in question, throws around some un-cited anecdotal evidence, and has no name. Both have weak positions, but only one is a troll.